MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395697025 · doi:10.5539/hes.v14n2p130

Developing Achievement in Mathematics, Specifically in Elementary Logic, through Brain-Based Learning (BBL) Combined with Skill Practice Exercises for Grade 10 Students

2024· article· en· W4395697025 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Keerati Kaewkumsai, Songsak Phusee-orn

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyAcademic achievementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research aims to: 1) Develop an effective Brain-Based Learning (BBL) plan combined with skill practice exercises for Grade 10 students, achieving a performance criterion of 70/70; 2) Compare the learning outcomes in elementary logic before and after implementing the BBL approach combined with skill practice exercises for Grade 10 students; 3) Study the satisfaction level of students towards the BBL approach combined with skill practice exercises for Grade 10 students. The sample group consisted of 39 students from Grade 10 room 4 in the first semester of the 2023 academic year, selected through purposive sampling. Research tools included a learning management plan, an achievement test, skill practice exercises, and a satisfaction questionnaire. Data were analyzed using percentages, mean, standard deviation, and dependent samples t-test. The research found that: 1) The BBL-based learning management plan for elementary logic for Grade 10 students was effective, with performance levels of 95.69/81.28, exceeding the set criterion of 70/70; 2) The academic achievement of students who underwent the BBL-based learning in elementary logic for Grade 10 students significantly improved post-learning, at a .05 level of statistical significance; 3) Students were highly satisfied with the BBL-based learning approach combined with skill practice exercises in elementary logic for Grade 10 students, with a mean satisfaction score of 4.86.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionFrench-language works237,207